Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshep
Yes that article is utter bilge far more based in agenda driven politics then the reality of NATO.
|
It may feel better trying to live in the past, but Europe has changed since the invasion of Ukraine.
---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
That article is utter tripe - or worse. Why must the FT link UK's influence in NATO with Brexit or being EU members? So what - Germany is going to be "military-equipped"; what does that mean? And what shots would France/Germany call that the UK couldn't influence. Utter bollocks by the FT.
Andrew, I hope you don't subscribe to the words you quoted.
|
I think you may need to read the full article to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions.
This is my take on that aspect of the article.
When the UK left the EU, it decided to adopt an ad hoc approach to defence meetings with the EU, which is obviously weaker than a regular structure. To the delight of Russia, it was soon squabbling with France over fish and to the horror of the US, arguing with Ireland over its own Brexit agreement.
Post the Ukraine invasion, it's now obvious that the UK's defence priorities lie with Europe. The UK therefore needs some kind of regular forum with EU members. This need is more pressing given Germany's change of position increasing its prominence in NATO.
I can certainly see the benefit of such meetings. If not, there must surely be the chance of France and Germany sewing up European defence policy between them and the UK falls into the background.